Originally on 1 January 1970 updated 1 January 1970 published.
In almost all studies, the weight loss with low-carb low calorie diets, the group with low carb diet much weight, and usually lose more. It was always amazing to me that this is so little of the scientists who noticed the work. Think consciously restrict calories produced greater weight loss than diet, which basically pays little attention to the amount of food eaten.
As any experienced low carber know the answer is that we are less hungry when we restrict carbohydrates and hungry when we restrict calories. (Warning almost always to reduce :. people on calorie restriction diets carbohydrates that can actually explain some of the weight loss with these diets) So why nutritionists tend not to take? You do not like it, that would be an important topic to explore? But until now it was almost ... .crickets.
However, recently, it was actually a bit of work done on this, especially with the shakes. Smoothies are really ideal to investigate the effects of different amounts and types of carbohydrates, fats and proteins. This is because they can vary in size, but still the same taste and consistency - Participants in the experiment did not know the difference, but to do the experimenters. Let's look at a few of these studies.
One low-glycemic carbohydrate vs high glycemic carbohydrates
The study, led by Dr. David Ludwig were overweight or obese men aged 18-35 two different shakes every two weeks. For men, they are the same - they were designed to exactly the same amount of carbohydrates (69 g), protein (18 g), fat (14 grams) and calories (500) have, and tested exactly the same. People could not tell the difference between smoothies ... but there was an important difference. The carbohydrate is in a beverage was calculated to give the sugar higher than that of other blood. It would look something like a soda to brown rice and beans to eat cooked together.So what happened? Several things.
1) Blood sugar - of course, sent the high-glycemic sugar jolt the highest blood after drinking. But two hours later the blood sugar high GI flip was actually lower, possibly in the field of hypoglycemia. Blood sugar was much more stable after the low GI shock, never below normal.
2) Hunger - Every half hour for the next five hours after the quake, men are asked to rate their hunger. Of course, the hunger "not hungry" in the letter fell into the assessment immediately after drinking the smoothie. Yet even then the high extract IG has never been so satisfying. During the next five hours, the men were less satisfied and hungrier after high GI tremor. There is at any point during the five hours.
3) images of the brain - Much has been made of the fact that the earthquake caused a high GI increased activation in the centers of the brain associated with reward and addiction. It is interesting because we know that what we call trigger these centers "very tasty processed foods." Heck, even photos of these foods are our brains comment! This study controlled for by identical vibrations taste.
Pero. Imaging of the brain was done for the four-hour mark. We already know that the food reward centers are more active when people are hungry (and everyone knows that food tastes better when you're hungry). There the difference between shingles image induced cerebral was high that IG shakes makes men hungry? I do not think this question has been answered. The images of the brain are different soon after taking the shakes, I would have given more information on addiction, but the pictures are not made at the time.
2 carbs to fat
OK, so it seems that carbohydrates with high glycemic index may make people hungrier than those with a low glycemic index. But people who follow low carb diets tend to increase the amount of fat in the diet as they cut the sugar and starch. What happens then? You would think that would be even better, since fats do not raise blood sugar at all, so that all carbohydrates are essentially "sugar" in our body.
A study again with Shakes (4 different units this time) to see what happens in our brain with different fat and sugar in the shakes (same calories). And you know what? The researchers were surprised that despite all shocks were gratifying, sugar was the component that really lights up the brain, even if all the shocks were so sweet An unanswered question in this study. Was low sugar moved rewarding high in fat because fat, or because of the sweetness, because we know that a sweet taste is rewarding, even without the effects on the body than sugar.
None of this is familiar to surprise people how carbohydrates affect the body. In a recent study of the Mediterranean diet and heart disease, to ask people to not carry significant amounts of nuts or olive oil in your diet cause people to gain weight: apparently just naturally cut back other things they ate. That is exactly how our body is to function. It is only recently that people had to even think much about being overweight or obese or calories. Guess what - weight, that something that the body of the people treated more or less automatically, with what? - Hunger. Imagine. Could the influx of high glucose, sugar and highly processed starches have this balance be disturbed? It appears that at least a part thereof.
Technical note: I love studies like this, where people * instead of other random people * are compared. You can do it in relatively small and short-term studies, but they tell us a lot. The same research group conducted the first study that I described above (low carb may be best to lose weight, keep) people have about themselves under different regimes of maintaining weight loss. It reminds us that we do our own research - no need to know the average of 50 000 people results; we only need to know the results of our own body.
Sources:
Lemmerz, Alsop, et al. Effects of dietary glycemic index in brain regions with reward and desire in men connected. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 113.064113v1 (2013)
Stice et al. Relative ability of fat and sugar to activate the reward taste, taste and somatosensory regions. CME; 98 (6): 1377-1384 (2013)
No comments:
Post a Comment